The Quran as a miracle - is it a legitimate challenge?

[dybmh]

@Link,

It seems to me that in order to complete this challenge with a viable conclusion, one would need to recreate the circmstances when/where it was written. Perhaps being in that time, in that place, among those individuals contributed to the eloquence of the text?

If so, then it is another reason that the challenge is erroneous. One isn't able to recreate the circumstances of the original authorship. But this doesn't diminish that the text is unique. But it does question whether or not it is divinely inspired.

 

[firedragon]

Eloquence in general is the usage of words in a way that is pleasing to the intellect and sense of aesthetics. Perhaps having to do with the cadence, rhythm, rhyme or word-choices made that convey multiple meanings that are all applicable, or the use of particular vocabulary that is at once sophisticated and entirely apt. It may also have to do with apparent profundity expressed succinctly or with what may be described as the very best words for the purpose ("perfect").

However, the eloquence itself should not be thought of as something impossible to achieve. Indeed, there are people the world over who are "the best" in any sort of category. And this leans into my original point. Let us instead say that there is a man who is the best at wielding an axe to chop down trees. Of all men, he can do it in the fewest chops, and all his chops seem to release the most wood from the tree that they possibly could given the strength and ability of a human. Would it be "fair" or "rational" for God to show up and state that He was behind this man's ability, and if none among the other humans of the world could match this man's ability to swing that axe and chop those trees, that they must then admit that God Himself was behind this ability? If that sounds strange, or not quite right when the target is tree chopping- then why is it suddenly "so right" and "so rational" when the target is instead "eloquence" and "the Quran?" Can you answer this question for me? Can you? Again - I dare you. It seems you need quite a bit of prompting to simply answer questions. I answer the ones put to me from you - I do, and I am not afraid. If you don't like me guessing at fear being the cause that you don't answer, then please - dispel all plausibility of me holding that notion AND ACTUALLY RESPOND.

This is the problem. You are making your own assumption without asking the author of this thread what his thesis is. You have your own presuppositions. I just asked you to show you that you have no clue of what you are responding to.

I will ignore your childish dares and remarks a few people like you use to get a little adrenalin they lack in normal life. I will give you an example. Lets see if you have the humility required to even attempt at a decent understanding. This is not to support the OP, or to prove anything but to show you the subject a tad. Just a tad.

The Quran as a book in the arabic language is the standard and source of the language and grammar. There has never been a book better in language, prior to it, and after it. And this is not a Muslim view, it is a linguistic view. When you construct a sentence like "Tatajafa junubaheem", jafa is to distance from it. When you leave something and you don’t like it any more. Meaning of 'to distance themselves' 'ta' adds the.meaning 'continuously as in the word Tajafa. 'tatajafa': another addition of 'ta' means extra struggle. So the overall meaning 'to distance from something, continuously, with extra struggle'. This kind of linguistics is not present in a single original work ever found in the entire human history, unless you can find one and show me. And mind you, just cutting and pasting a word tomorrow will not work, because it has to rhyme with the whole book with 6,236 verses.

The Quran has a set of letters we call Mukatthah. 29 chapters in the Quran begin with these. Lets only take one example of these to show you the rhyming of the Quran. Tell me if any book in the whole world has achieved this. The chapter al Kalam 90% of the verses rhyme with Noon. 85% of verses in Al Shuara, 92% of Al Kasas, 90% of Al Name, rhyme with Noon. 50.08% is rhymed with the letter noon. Can you show me one book in the entire world that has 50% of it rhyming with noon, with this kind of volume, and linguistic standard?

Now this is a tad. And this is only on the rhyme. And that too, just one letter. There are fourteen of such mukattaah and twenty nine chapters with them, that cohabit with 114 chapters. And that too, is just one small, single aspect of this "thesis".

 

[firedragon]

What topic?

The topic you want to discuss. Proof for God, does God exist, logical proof for God. These are all your topics you are bringing in this thread.

 

[Link]

@Link,

It seems to me that in order to complete this challenge with a viable conclusion, one would need to recreate the circmstances when/where it was written. Perhaps being in that time, in that place, among those individuals contributed to the eloquence of the text?

If so, then it is another reason that the challenge is erroneous. One isn't able to recreate the circumstances of the original authorship. But this doesn't diminish that the text is unique. But it does question whether or not it is divinely inspired.

Why does it have to recreate the circumstances?

 

[dybmh]

Why does it have to recreate the circumstances?

Otherwise one can claim that it was the circumstances at the time which inspired the writing, not God. The challenge doesn't really test for divinity, it tests for unique literary ability. The challenge doesn't address this as written in the OP, I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Link]

Otherwise one can claim that it was the circumstances at the time which inspired the writing, not God. The challenge doesn't really test for divinity, it tests for unique literary ability. The challenge doesn't address this as written in the OP, I think. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see why circumstances stop it from being replicable. For example, Shakespeare, had his culture and politics influence him and no doubt it shapes his style. Yet there are fake attributions to him, works they say he has done when experts know it's not, and experts sort all that out. It's not that his works are not replicable.

 

[dybmh]

I don't see why circumstances stop it from being replicable. For example, Shakespeare, had his culture and politics influence him and no doubt it shapes his style. Yet there are fake attributions to him, works they say he has done when experts know it's not, and experts sort all that out. It's not that his works are not replicable.

I don't think Shakespeare is a good example. The intention there is to entertain.

Perhaps look at it this way. In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to eliminate alternative more plausible explanations. Essentially, it needs to somehow avoid false positives/affirmations of the conclusion: "The Quran is divine". One such false positive is: "The tester gave up because they lost interest in searching". Another false positive: "The tester never finished seeking, because of the massive amount of literary material to review." Another false positive: "The tester gave up because there are no objective metrics provided." Another false positive: "The Quran is unique because Mohammad and his life experiences were unique."

In each of these examples, the Quran is not duplicated for reasons other than it is lacking a divine source. If these plausible counter-examples are not addressed, then the challenge is too cumbersome to be legitmate. As I said before, "Who would actually do this?" Who would spend the massive amount of time needed to properly and completely seek a replicant?

In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to be acheivable without so much effort. Without it, you'll end up with a bunch of false positives.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is the problem. You are making your own assumption without asking the author of this thread what his thesis is. You have your own presuppositions. I just asked you to show you that you have no clue of what you are responding to.

I very much enjoy that fact that you still have not refuted one single thing I have said. The non sequiturs. Please address the non sequiturs.

I will ignore your childish dares and remarks a few people like you use to get a little adrenalin they lack in normal life. I will give you an example. Lets see if you have the humility required to even attempt at a decent understanding. This is not to support the OP, or to prove anything but to show you the subject a tad. Just a tad.

Once again appealing to how I "hurt your feelings." I take this to be another escape attempt. Seriously - I can see nothing else but this. And my opinion of you swirls ever further down the toilet. Stop pointing to what you think are my failures of etiquette and actually say something in the defense of something, or admit that there is nothing we are in contention on in the first place. This is getting tedious.

The Quran as a book in the arabic language is the standard and source of the language and grammar. There has never been a book better in language, prior to it, and after it. And this is not a Muslim view, it is a linguistic view. When you construct a sentence like "Tatajafa junubaheem", jafa is to distance from it. When you leave something and you don’t like it any more. Meaning of 'to distance themselves' 'ta' adds the.meaning 'continuously as in the word Tajafa. 'tatajafa': another addition of 'ta' means extra struggle. So the overall meaning 'to distance from something, continuously, with extra struggle'. This kind of linguistics is not present in a single original work ever found in the entire human history, unless you can find one and show me. And mind you, just cutting and pasting a word tomorrow will not work, because it has to rhyme with the whole book with 6,236 verses.

The Quran has a set of letters we call Mukatthah. 29 chapters in the Quran begin with these. Lets only take one example of these to show you the rhyming of the Quran. Tell me if any book in the whole world has achieved this. The chapter al Kalam 90% of the verses rhyme with Noon. 85% of verses in Al Shuara, 92% of Al Kasas, 90% of Al Name, rhyme with Noon. 50.08% is rhymed with the letter noon. Can you show me one book in the entire world that has 50% of it rhyming with noon, with this kind of volume, and linguistic standard?

Now this is a tad. And this is only on the rhyme. And that too, just one letter. There are fourteen of such mukattaah and twenty nine chapters with them, that cohabit with 114 chapters. And that too, is just one small, single aspect of this "thesis".

None of this matters, and I have already discussed why at length. And here is where I call you out for being dishonest yet again. Entirely. Here you are, stating over and over "I am not making any claims," or "I am not defending anything." And yet you ask me to produce for you another book that does these things the Quran accomplishes or puts forth. WHY do you ask me to produce this? Why? What is it you think my inability to produce such a thing PROVES? What does it do? And if it does NOTHING... then what? Why are you asking me to do this? Give me a damn break. You're grasping at straws at this point... especially, I feel, because I passed your "test" on the meaning of "eloquence" with FLYING COLORS. You thought you had me there... well you didn't. Per usual, your post was a complete and utter failure to produce anything of worth. And there it is, right there. You are so worried about covering your butt and staying neutral that you don't actually commit to or say anything at all. Yours must be a most tepid "faith" indeed.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think Shakespeare is a good example. The intention there is to entertain.

Perhaps look at it this way. In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to eliminate alternative more plausible explanations. Essentially, it needs to somehow avoid false positives/affirmations of the conclusion: "The Quran is divine". One such false positive is: "The tester gave up because they lost interest in searching". Another false positive: "The tester never finished seeking, because of the massive amount of literary material to review." Another false positive: "The tester gave up because there are no objective metrics provided." Another false positive: "The Quran is unique because Mohammad and his life experiences were unique."

In each of these examples, the Quran is not duplicated for reasons other than it is lacking a divine source. If these plausible counter-examples are not addressed, then the challenge is too cumbersome to be legitmate. As I said before, "Who would actually do this?" Who would spend the massive amount of time needed to properly and completely seek a replicant?

In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to be acheivable without so much effort. Without it, you'll end up with a bunch of false positives.

I respect your post. Unlike many you make sense.

But I would like to urge you not to make hypotheticals and state it as a case, because anyone can come up with some hypothetical and they always do.

In doing a study what you should do is come up with a hypothesis (speaking from your approach) from a qualitative study of norms (I can relate that to what you did above), then you have to test it with the subject text. Thats a study. Only then its valid. So since you have some hypotheticals above, you must test it with the text.

 

[firedragon]

Once again appealing to how I "hurt your feelings.

Lol. Aww. Cute.

None of this matters

Not to toddlers.

Have a good day.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Lol. Aww. Cute.



Not to toddlers.

Have a good day.

Hilarious. You too man. Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

Take a look at these so called "Intellectual atheists". Every single theist in this thread, for the thread or against, have acted decently and intellectually. But not the atheists (In this thread). The assume they are, but are not.

Its a shame for the majority of atheists in this world who represent intellect.

Cant engage because you are uneducated on the subject? Insult, and hope that works like a headline.

Cheers.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not a point refuted. Not even an attempt made. If I was so off base, you'd think it would be easy. Wouldn't it?

Easier to claim I "wasn't being civil" and then shrug shoulders to onlookers in a bid for sympathy. I can tell you what though - the exact same behavior could have been witnessed had I been just as civil as pie, but brought to bear the same points. The same refusal to answer or commit to anything - the same attempts to distract from the conversation with something else so that the points wouldn't need to be answered.

Can't engage because you're too frightened of the implications your answers will reveal? Distract and dodge and hope your opponent gets frustrated enough that you can claim they insulted you.

Hey - if it is truly the best you've got, then I get it. I'd never conduct myself the same way on principle. But I get it.

 

[Link]

I don't think Shakespeare is a good example. The intention there is to entertain.

Perhaps look at it this way. In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to eliminate alternative more plausible explanations. Essentially, it needs to somehow avoid false positives/affirmations of the conclusion: "The Quran is divine". One such false positive is: "The tester gave up because they lost interest in searching". Another false positive: "The tester never finished seeking, because of the massive amount of literary material to review." Another false positive: "The tester gave up because there are no objective metrics provided." Another false positive: "The Quran is unique because Mohammad and his life experiences were unique."

In each of these examples, the Quran is not duplicated for reasons other than it is lacking a divine source. If these plausible counter-examples are not addressed, then the challenge is too cumbersome to be legitmate. As I said before, "Who would actually do this?" Who would spend the massive amount of time needed to properly and completely seek a replicant?

In order for the challenge to be valid, it needs to be acheivable without so much effort. Without it, you'll end up with a bunch of false positives.

Given how many opponents Islam has to do this day. I don't think lack of interest to meet the challenge is the reason. The objective metrics, I think we have to observe what makes Quran unique first and rally point it's signs, then looking at it's design, we can analyze if there metrics to measure all this by.

Also it just seems natural, that if it's fabricated and man made, to be able to replicate it, just like other man made works no matter how amazing they are, you can get replications similar and even false forgeries attributed to those authors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're Belgian?

Yes.

(Go Red Devils!)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take a look at these so called "Intellectual atheists". Every single theist in this thread, for the thread or against, have acted decently and intellectually. But not the atheists (In this thread). The assume they are, but are not.

In your opinion / perspective.

From my perspective, you have been incredibly rude, condescending and extremely arrogant. Borderline trolling, really. Business as usual.

Its a shame for the majority of atheists in this world who represent intellect.
Cant engage because you are uneducated on the subject? Insult, and hope that works like a headline.

Nobody insulted you.
Instead, people just called you out on your usual incredibly rude passive aggressiveness.

Cheers.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The objective metrics, I think we have to observe what makes Quran unique first and rally point it's signs, then looking at it's design, we can analyze if there metrics to measure all this by.

What "objective metrics"?

I asked you a couple dozen times to list them.
Are you planning to one of these days or...?

Also it just seems natural, that if it's fabricated and man made, to be able to replicate it, just like other man made works no matter how amazing they are, you can get replications similar and even false forgeries attributed to those authors.

Ok.

Write me the equivalent of an Eric Clapton song.
I challenge you to write me a song just like it. With the same vibe, the same technical proficiency, the same emotion, the same eloquence, the same feel. To the point that if a True Eric Clapton Fan (tm) hears it, he might confuse it for an original.

Go ahead. Try.

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

(Go Red Devils!)

Red Devils? Is that WW2 era British Airborne?

I race bikes, and my cyclocross bike is Beligian. I'm planning to be there in 2023 for the Masters Cyclocross World Championships. I can't wait.

 

[F1fan]

I respect your post. Unlike many you make sense.

But I would like to urge you not to make hypotheticals and state it as a case, because anyone can come up with some hypothetical and they always do.

The problem is the OP is hypothetical as it assumes the Quran is divinely inspired, and not being able to replicate a similar sample will prove this. To my mind this whole discussion is wide open to proposals and alternatives.

 

[firedragon]

The problem is the OP is hypothetical is it assumes the Quran is divinely inspired and not being able to replicate a similar sample will prove this. To my mind this whole discussion is wide open to proposals and alternatives.

What specific proposal and what is the analysis its based on?

I know that no atheist in this particular thread so far has responded with anything but just superficial assumptions and random "hypotheticals" without even knowing the thesis behind what you are trying to refute.

So at least now, try and provide a specific proposal and what is the analysis its based on!